I agree. I personally feel that she is a complete dirtbag and a horrible parent, but the prosecution was way out of line in using such a ridiculous law to prosecute. Unfortunately, she'll be seen as "innocent" now. Really they should have prosecuted her with regular ol' harassment or whatever laws don't use the words "cyber" or "e-" or "tubes" in them and pushed for that maximum sentence.

I can't believe someone proving themselves to be as big a fucking moron as you must be got modded insightful. She did not set out to cause the girl to/wrist, she just set out to fuck with her. If this ruling had stood, any and all trolling/flaming on the internet would be made illegal. That's bullshit.

ALSO
This girls parents knew every step of the way what was going on, minus the fact that the boy was an adult woman, and after ti happened whined to the media about how even though they told her to stay off the computer she simply refused and they didn't do shit to stop her. Where the fuck are the cries of "Where the fuck were the parents?"

Apparently not now. This could be used as case law to argue that yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater (or around a firing squad) is acceptable.

The main problem with this case, all along, is that it was going to set some sort of precedent. That was inescapable. Judges HATE setting precedents and try their damnest to always set the most relaxed precedent possible, so as to not get blamed later on. (It rarely has anything to do with law, as far as I can tell, purely a CYA.)

The secondary problem was that there was no rational or sane legal instrument that could be used. It was going to be the same farce as the British Govt using lockpicking laws against the guy who broke into Prince Philip's e-mail account.

The first problem is going to be hard to avoid with any new real or potential abuse of technology. The second problem is caused entirely by lawmakers who are too stupid to say what they mean and mean what they say, but try to fancy-up the language to sound impressive. It should be entirely possible to codify a set of laws that are independent of the technology of the day or the social mores of the day. Instead, their aim is not so much to write clean law but to get re-elected.

It's times like this that I wonder if there shouldn't be a branch of Government solely concerned with working through the laws and shredding everything too stupid or too of-the-moment to keep.

That's a horrible example, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it. The case in question, if you care to do some research--did not involve a person shouting fire in a theatre. It did not involve anyone shouting fire. That quote came from a judge convicting a man of distributing communist leaflets. "Fire in a theatre" seems totally appealing to the average person--but the precedent it set was that politically unpopular speech was equivalent to inciting a dangerous panic.

Please--can we abolish the example of fire in a theatre forever more? In the eyes of the judiciary--it's equivalent to handing out fliers.

(Please note that any addresses of 'you' refer to the person that commits suicide because they were solicited male enhancement, who you addressed as 'I')

As far as I know, Lori Drew committed this crime fully aware that the girl had psychological problems. That's like spammers sending you messages because they are fully aware your penis is small. They obviously aren't (unless you advertise it online, or happened to have slept with one of them). So if you decide to off yourself because some random person is sending 'enhancement' spam to thousands or millions of people, including yourself, and you interpret their spam as demeaning, then you are clearly at more fault than the spammer is. Interpreting impersonal e-mails offering assistance for your insecurity as demeaning requires some sort of psychological problem on your part, probably depression caused by insecurity (which in and of itself would be a psychological problem).

In the case of this girl, Drew intentionally bullied her. The messages Drew sent the girl could easily be interpreted as bullying by just about anyone of sane mind. Drew also intentionally addressed the messages specifically to this girl--it was not some 'you suck' e-mail send to every person on a million-person address book.

As far as I know, nobody's privacy was questionably respected/disrespected in this case (I don't see anybody ranting about it on slashdot), so your concerns for burning people for their diary entries are ill-founded.

Blogs are essentially anonymously-addressed e-mails for anyone who cares to read them. This case sets no precedence for what is (as far as my above argument is concerned) essentially equivalent to spam that people may choose to read. Your concerns for the public's right to blog are also ill-founded.

Here is my case for you simply (in case you misinterpreted anything I said above, which tends to happen when two people disagree):Before you get concerned over nanny-states consider whether the analogies you base your conclusions on are actually relevant and correct. In this case they are not.

Why isn't it manslaughter. There is an obvious disparity of knowledge.

For example lets assume you think I'm a doctor and I write you a prescription for "Coumatetralyl" (a rat poison). I give you a sample below what I think is the lethal dose. You take it and die. I'm not a doctor and I told you what I was giving you.

The combination of misrepresentation + intent to harm makes manslaughter.